i7-5820k vs. i7-6700K for sim gaming

[wyqtor]

Which one would you choose for gaming? It's a bit hard for me to decide because I'm having trouble finding reviews comparing these two CPUs. The important thing for me is that I need good performance not only in graphically intensive AAA games like GTA 5, but also in heavily modded simulation games with lots of agents, like Cities Skylines, which I play a lot. And I would also like the AI to be as fast as possible in heavily modded Civilization games, so that I have to wait as little as possible after clicking "end turn".

I plan to keep it some 5 years or so, so my main concern is: would the 6-core Haswell-E be more future-proof for my needs?

 

[Araxie]

i7 5820K all the way...

 

[KGBinUSA]

Definitely 5820K. Especially considering that developers are just starting to incorporate multithread functionality and usage into games.

 

[GearChoices]

Everything I have seen so far gives no indication that an overclocked 5820k will be able to match an overclocked 6700k in gaming any time soon. There is a lot of TALK about multi-threaded gaming, which up until recently has been ignored, but even the games that are already actually doing it are still barely doing it. An overclocked 6700k still beats an overclocked 5820k in almost all of those games lightly using six cores. By time games actually start utilizing six cores (many of which right now still do not even fully use four cores), I think it will be time to get a new CPU anyway.

I may be wrong, but so far I have seen no actual evidence that an overclocked 5820k will beat an overclocked 6700k within a year.

 

[Impulse]

How well threaded are those sim games or Civ? That's what it all hinges on no? Seems like either could be something that benefits from more cores but in both cases they might also be running older game engines that aren't very well threaded.

 

[the_real_7]

5820k ? Slower memory options
Less of a over clock
More heat
M2 is slow
Why ?

It's not that's it's a bad setup really ,but when you consider gaming and speed 6700k 4790 4770 eat it .
Now if you actually have a program that uses the 6 cores that's understandable .but windows 7 8 barely uses quad cores for multitasking. Plus ddr4 is slow it takes a 6700k k to get to the nice stuff 3200 where ddr4 starts competing with ddr3 options. It's speed versus muscle power.

 

[obiwansotti]

5820k ? Slower memory options

but it's quad channel so it's 2x at the same speed.

Less of a over clock

Deffinetly a sticking point.

More heat

Actually it sounds like the 6700K is going to be just as hot.

M2 is slow, Why ?

I haven't seen that. Perhaps it was specific to the mobo you looked at.

If anything X99 with it's directly connected PCIe lanes should be superior to Z170 for M2.

It's not that's it's a bad setup really ,but when you consider gaming and speed 6700k 4790 4770 eat it .

while it's true, OTOH X99 or Z170 w/ a cpu @ 4.5ghz is likely going to be GPU limited unless it's an app that probably can load the extra cores.

It's an argument that can go either way, I'm trying to decide which one to pull the trigger on myself.

Plus ddr4 is slow it takes a 6700k k to get to the nice stuff 3200 where ddr4 starts competing with ddr3 options. It's speed versus muscle power.

You missed the whole dual channel v quad channel bit here. The best DDR4 in the Z170 is still only 70% of the memor bandwidht on the x99.

 

[zaniix]

but it's quad channel so it's 2x at the same speed.


You missed the whole dual channel v quad channel bit here. The best DDR4 in the Z170 is still only 70% of the memor bandwidht on the x99.

Is there any data that shows actual benefit to quad channel? So far all I see is a system that is picky about what speed the memory can run at. I do not trust synthetic bench marks.

I think either way you go it will be an upgrade, games will run well if your video card can handle it and things should run smoother because of the CPU.

The largest benefit I have heard people talk about who had older high end systems is that upgrading made things smoother, not just 'now I get more FPS'. The quality improves and that is something that is hard to find in charts other than showing maybe the minimum frame rate being higher which I think is also a good indication of the quality.

This is also why I hate 3 and 4 way SLI, when your min and max frame rates have such a huge fluctuation things get all wacky, I found the experience very poor and would never even consider it after having tried it. Micro stuttering is awful to me.

I am waiting for Skylake because I really want the newest tech and while some of the older stuff does support NVMe and USB3c connectors it doesn't seem fully worked out yet and I want to best chance of being able to use that stuff when the time comes.

So far the reviews of Z170 boards has been much better than x99 boards as far as ability to overclock out of the box and not waste tons of time wondering why your RAM wont run at its rated speed.

 

[obiwansotti]

Is there any data that shows actual benefit to quad channel? So far all I see is a system that is picky about what speed the memory can run at. I do not trust synthetic bench marks.

Some show a slim improvement.
But the above poster can't throw shade at the X99 about memory bandwidth, I'm not saying it's huge plus, but it's certainly not a negative v the Z170.

I am waiting for Skylake because I really want the newest tech and while some of the older stuff does support NVMe and USB3c connectors it doesn't seem fully worked out yet and I want to best chance of being able to use that stuff when the time comes.

What you really want is an alpine ridge controller, and those aren't shipping quite yet. They may also show up on the X99.

 

[Impulse]

Alpine Ridge adds Thunderbolt which few care about, not sure what else it'd bring over the current Asmedia controllers the different vendors are using for 3.1/Type C... Possibly higher amp output for charging? I never charge anything from my USB ports but I dunno if that might change with Type C.

 

[KGBinUSA]

Civ does use multiple threads http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1626456 , but it only seems that it uses a max of 4 cores. So technically yes, a 6700K will beat a 5820K straight out of the box. Even if your overclock the 5820K, it will not reach the clock of an overclocked 6700K.

Which is more futureproof? 5820K.

 

[Parmenides]

But does anyone trim down their OS to optimize their frames in everyday gaming. I like to alt tab to my multitude of browser tabs while gaming. Is that a significant factor?

I'm still debating getting the 5820k too.

 

[Hornet]

For me, I went with the 5820K because I believe even with a mild overclock to 4GHz, it should be fast enough for gaming. Although Skylake may be faster technically, if I'm not going to see the benefits anyway, it's kind of pointless. I don't run my games at 3 digits fps, and so most of the times I'm either limited by GPU performance, or simply not fully utilizing anything due to the 60fps cap.

With that in consideration, 5820K is a better option IMO as DX12 will take advantage of the additional cores in the future, if we ever get to such demanding situation within the useful lifespan of these current chips.

 

[M76]

Everything I have seen so far gives no indication that an overclocked 5820k will be able to match an overclocked 6700k in gaming any time soon. There is a lot of TALK about multi-threaded gaming, which up until recently has been ignored, but even the games that are already actually doing it are still barely doing it. An overclocked 6700k still beats an overclocked 5820k in almost all of those games lightly using six cores. By time games actually start utilizing six cores (many of which right now still do not even fully use four cores), I think it will be time to get a new CPU anyway.

I may be wrong, but so far I have seen no actual evidence that an overclocked 5820k will beat an overclocked 6700k within a year.

If you're planning to swap cpus in 12 months yes the 6700 is definitely a better choice. But we're talking a few fps difference here and there. Nothing that you can actually notice. Especially since the faster cpu will mostly show in top end range of the FPS counter, when there is less stress on the GPU, so unless you aim to play at 100+ fps and not limited by a 60hz monitor, only then will you see any benefit to having a faster 4 core compared to a slightly slower (core by core) 6 core.

 

[KGBinUSA]

If you're planning to swap cpus in 12 months yes the 6700 is definitely a better choice. But we're talking a few fps difference here and there. Nothing that you can actually notice. Especially since the faster cpu will mostly show in top end range of the FPS counter, when there is less stress on the GPU, so unless you aim to play at 100+ fps and not limited by a 60hz monitor, only then will you see any benefit to having a faster 4 core compared to a slightly slower (core by core) 6 core.

OP is not talking about FPS >.< He is talking about AI calculations at the end of the turn for Civilization, which do take some time.

 

[zaniix]

The truth is they will both work almost as well which is what makes it so hard for anyone to say for sure that one is better, other than showing synthetic benchmarks and FPS tests. The Z170 chipset is newer and could end up being more stable for things like the NVMe drives which is really what I am more concerned with. The x99s also seem to vary wildly in what overclocks people can get


If that past 6 years says anything both of these chips will be solid performers in 6 years and we will all be complaining about how whatever just came out is not really worth upgrading to.

 

[KickAssCop]

5820K. Buying a quad in 2015 is a joke imo.

 

[zaniix]

5820K. Buying a quad in 2015 is a joke imo.

Part of me agrees with you, but the majority of high core count CPUs I deal with are for Virtual Machines and even among those I have found that some apps prefer speed over high core count.

We lived with single core processors from way back until 2005 and then quads in 2006, but at the time a quad was kind of pointless because so few things could take advantage of it.

In all that time the majority of game power shifted to the GPU and only needing enough CPU to support it. It has really become more about efficiency.

If the 5820k had a default clock of 4.0 I might be more inclined to go that way, but the more cores you have the lower the speed so I am not going out of my way to buy a high core count CPU unless there is a good reason beyond the fact that we have been using quads for 9 years.

Shouldnt we be happy that we can build a top end system and then only upgrade the Video card over the next 6 + years?

 

[atp1916]

5820K / X99.

You have to go with DDR4 with Skylake anyways as it is now, and any decent Z170x board is going to be not so far off from a moderate quality X99 board.

 

[The Cobra]

If ALL you are doing is gaming...then go for the 6700k.

If you do MORE than gaming...then go for the X-99 setup.

 

[KickAssCop]

Part of me agrees with you, but the majority of high core count CPUs I deal with are for Virtual Machines and even among those I have found that some apps prefer speed over high core count.

We lived with single core processors from way back until 2005 and then quads in 2006, but at the time a quad was kind of pointless because so few things could take advantage of it.

In all that time the majority of game power shifted to the GPU and only needing enough CPU to support it. It has really become more about efficiency.

If the 5820k had a default clock of 4.0 I might be more inclined to go that way, but the more cores you have the lower the speed so I am not going out of my way to buy a high core count CPU unless there is a good reason beyond the fact that we have been using quads for 9 years.

Shouldnt we be happy that we can build a top end system and then only upgrade the Video card over the next 6 + years?

I was faced with a similar decision 3-4 months back. My 2600k @ 4.8 was doing just fine. I sold it for this setup because I wasn't going to buy another quad. I could have tried my luck with a 4790k @ 4.8 ghz but this is fine with me. I know when games that use multiple cores are going to come, this processor will come in handy. Also given I will rock this for at least 2 years I would rather spend some 200 bucks now than on skylake that might be slow in poorly ported console ports.

Already games like GTA V and Witcher 3 run faster on 5930k than a 4790k at similar clocks.

 

[Impulse]

5820K / X99.

You have to go with DDR4 with Skylake anyways as it is now, and any decent Z170x board is going to be not so far off from a moderate quality X99 board.

Meh, it's like $160 vs $250 for basic boards, tho you can catch deals on some sub-$200 X99 mobos. Not everyone has a Microcenter nearby either so it starts to add up, $90 more on the mobo, $40-140 more on the CPU (depending on whether you're going i5/i7)...

The difference in cost can be anywhere from minimal to like half the basic build cost. I'm attracted to the slightly more modern feature set on Z170 (and the seemingly more mature boards out of the gate), and slightly put off by the extra heat & OC headroom of an X99 setup...

My use is like 50/50 gaming/photography, probably gonna stay the course on Skylake unless the CPU shortage turns into a major whole-year debacle, tho I should probably have looked up how much Lightroom and things like Hugin/Photoshop Elements benefit from 6+ cores.

 

[zaniix]

I should probably have looked up how much Lightroom and things like Hugin/Photoshop Elements benefit from 6+ cores.

Ask and
Lightroom multi core

Short answer is get a Quad.

I think Photoshop makes pretty good use of multi cores, but lightroom does not most of the time.

I think what you have to ask is, do I sit and do other stuff on the PC while Lightroom is rendering or importing/exporting etc. I tend to set something up and then walk away, but if you are doing other stuff then it might be beneficial.

I also heard the more Haswel-e's they sell the sooner we will get 6700ks so go buy one


FYI if you look at the comment on that article by "Matt Bach" he said they tested the x99 vs skylake and found that the only real benefit of x99 was the ability to have RAM above 64gb, in the end speed trumped cores.

 

[Impulse]

Ask and
Lightroom multi core

Short answer is get a Quad.

I think Photoshop makes pretty good use of multi cores, but lightroom does not most of the time.

I think what you have to ask is, do I sit and do other stuff on the PC while Lightroom is rendering or importing/exporting etc. I tend to set something up and then walk away, but if you are doing other stuff then it might be beneficial.

I also heard the more Haswel-e's they sell the sooner we will get 6700ks so go buy one


FYI if you look at the comment on that article by "Matt Bach" he said they tested the x99 vs skylake and found that the only real benefit of x99 was the ability to have RAM above 64gb, in the end speed trumped cores.

Interesting article, thanks for linking it. I've only read the conclusion so far but I like how they broke it down. I definitely spend more time editing and tinkering than exporting huge batches so it looks like a hexa+ core wouldn't help me a ton.

I sort of suspected Lr and their other low end offerings wouldn't reap the benefits of extra cores as well as PS, good to see some hard data tho. In the end it's not a black and white scenario regardless of workflow, just like it's probably hard to generalize line that on gaming.

Edit: Just saw that comment thread too, very interesting as well regarding Lr, etc but equally interesting as far as 6700K supply. He made a comment along the lines of having enough 6700Ks to last thru a shortage, heh, I think I'd been underestimating OEM demand for them.

Being a DIYer since, well forever, I figured there wouldn't be that many people running to a system builder to buy a pre-built PC with an unlocked Skylake K SKU; I guess there might be (quite a few ppl) tho.

 

[GearChoices]

I will throw in one random, minor point that came to my mind. People are talking about the dual-core era, the quad era, and now the hex era, and pointing out how long we have been in the quad era, therefore people should move onto the hex era now. I actually think the quad era should be separated into two, with us still being in the second one for at least the next year, if not longer.

All the way up until now, the non-hyperthreaded i5s have been the very best gaming CPUs. This is the first time where hyperthreaded CPUs are actually slightly faster in gaming clock for clock, while also being able to achieve a slightly higher overclock than the non-hyperthreaded quads.

So in a sense, by getting a 6700k now, you shouldn't feel like you are buying previous-era tech. It's just the second stage of the quad era, the hyperthreaded quad era, though it will be shorter than the first stage. Of course, this argument does not work with a 6600k.

 

[obiwansotti]

I will throw in one random, minor point that came to my mind. People are talking about the dual-core era, the quad era, and now the hex era, and pointing out how long we have been in the quad era, therefore people should move onto the hex era now. I actually think the quad era should be separated into two, with us still being in the second one for at least the next year, if not longer.

All the way up until now, the non-hyperthreaded i5s have been the very best gaming CPUs. This is the first time where hyperthreaded CPUs are actually slightly faster in gaming clock for clock, while also being able to achieve a slightly higher overclock than the non-hyperthreaded quads.

So in a sense, by getting a 6700k now, you shouldn't feel like you are buying previous-era tech. It's just the second stage of the quad era, the hyperthreaded quad era, though it will be shorter than the first stage. Of course, this argument does not work with a 6600k.

Sorry dude, that's non-sense

HT has been available on quad-cores since 2008 and Hex-Cores as EE since 2009.

Sure make a jump, it's time for us on old folks hardware. But nothing about skylake represents a new era.

 

[GearChoices]

Sorry dude, that's non-sense

HT has been available on quad-cores since 2008 and Hex-Cores as EE since 2009.

Sure make a jump, it's time for us on old folks hardware. But nothing about skylake represents a new era.

That isn't what I mean though. Up until skylake, a hyperthreaded quad-core at 4.0ghz provided zero additional gameplay performance over a 4.0ghz non-hyperthreaded quad-core. If what I understand is correct, that is no longer the case now, with games such as The Witcher 3. Yes, previous i7s are able to take advantage of that, but those i7s are still outperformed by i5s which can overclock noticeably higher, using those same games as performance measures.

The 6700k is the first i7 quad CPU that has been released with games already existing that can take advantage of the hyperthreading, and is also the first i7 quad CPU that can be overclocked equal or higher (in the 6700k's case, its actually higher than the 6600k on average, according to reviews) than the latest i5 quad CPU. It's the first time i7 has the gaming performance crown instead of the i5.

Now I am not praising Intel or Skylake, as Skylake is almost as mediocre as Devil's Canyon, Haswell, and Ivy. Just saying that I think people are prematurely calling this the end of the quad era. I do not think we are there yet except for people that are EXTREME multi-taskers on their PCs. Maybe Broadwell-E/Skylake-E will change things.

 

[zaniix]

That isn't what I mean though. Up until skylake, a hyperthreaded quad-core at 4.0ghz provided zero additional gameplay performance over a 4.0ghz non-hyperthreaded quad-core. If what I understand is correct, that is no longer the case now, with games such as The Witcher 3. Yes, previous i7s are able to take advantage of that, but those i7s are still outperformed by i5s which can overclock noticeably higher, using those same games as performance measures.

The 6700k is the first i7 quad CPU that has been released with games already existing that can take advantage of the hyperthreading, and is also the first i7 quad CPU that can be overclocked equal or higher (in the 6700k's case, its actually higher than the 6600k on average, according to reviews) than the latest i5 quad CPU. It's the first time i7 has the gaming performance crown instead of the i5.

Now I am not praising Intel or Skylake, as Skylake is almost as mediocre as Devil's Canyon, Haswell, and Ivy. Just saying that I think people are prematurely calling this the end of the quad era. I do not think we are there yet except for people that are EXTREME multi-taskers on their PCs. Maybe Broadwell-E/Skylake-E will change things.

You lost me, the i7-4790K Devil’s Canyon Quad-Core 4.0GHz was the best gaming CPU prior to I7- 6700 and it is a quad that supports hyper threading. I have to agree with obiwansotti.

 

[astr627]

5820k can be easily overclocked to 4.5GHz, at least from my experience....
X99 motherboards have better VRM and quality in general, because it's HEDT!
Almost doubled L3 cache, soldered TIM, 2 more cores, 4 more threads, Quad channel DDR4
I see no reason to get 6700k, especially if you do more work than just gaming with PC

 

[defaultluser]

Are games using more cores than they used to? Sure, standouts like Hitman and The Witcher 3 and Metro will use as many cores as you have (although a few fast cores is all you need to get a playable framerate). Only hardcore 120 Hz SLI nuts need care about having 8-12 threads to power these monsters.

Are the majority of game engines still limited to four cores or less? Yup, sad but true. I could still recommend the Core i5 as the smart gaming buy here in 2015, just like it was the smart gaming buy in 2011. It has fast single-threaded performance (only 300 MHz slower than the i7), and potent multi-threaded performance.

Until Intel moves 6 cores to the mainstream platform, this will not change.

 

[TDSlam720]

I know this is an outlier, but some games do use the extra cores. I'm with KickAssCop on this one. I went 5820k a day before Skylake release because I couldn't fathom buying another quad-core in 2015. Managed to get mine OCed to 4.5 ghz on 1.275 Volts and DDR4-3200.

And I will say.. I wasn't expecting quality of life increase in normal desktop usage, but everything is smoother, more consistent, and feels like it has breathe for days. Feels like I could just open shit until the end of time, and it never slows down for a second. Was coming off a 2600k at 4.5ghz w/ DDR3-1600 .

Both have positives and negatives. Skylake you get an easier platform, better IMC, and probably a bit higher OCs. X99 you get the extra cores, quad memory, and extra PCI-e lanes if you ever need them. Overall X99 to me feels more future proof than Skylake and the better investment.

 

[Trimlock]

Alpine Ridge adds Thunderbolt which few care about, not sure what else it'd bring over the current Asmedia controllers the different vendors are using for 3.1/Type C... Possibly higher amp output for charging? I never charge anything from my USB ports but I dunno if that might change with Type C.

Think of it as a multiplexer, it will allow TB, DP, Ethernet signals, etc over USB 3.1c connections. This thing is going to cost quite a bit though. Shouldn't be cheap at least.

Also, M.2 should be faster on an X99 than a Z170. The m.2 has more PCIe lanes that go directly to the CPU than Z170 and will most likely have to go through a PLX chip, causing some over head.

 

[zaniix]

Think of it as a multiplexer, it will allow TB, DP, Ethernet signals, etc over USB 3.1c connections. This thing is going to cost quite a bit though. Shouldn't be cheap at least.

Also, M.2 should be faster on an X99 than a Z170. The m.2 has more PCIe lanes that go directly to the CPU than Z170 and will most likely have to go through a PLX chip, causing some over head.

It is situational. I agree some people are going to be better off with x99, I am just not one of those people

Many Z170 boards will not have a PLX chip because there are enough PCIe lanes for single GPU which is all I use. I don't like M.2, I rather have a PCIe card with a heat spreader plugged into an x4 slot.

That said I think both are good options and will serve most of us equally.

 

[spectra260]

Intel Core i7-4790K Processor & MSI Z97-G45 Motherboard $399.00
http://www.frys.com/product/8554859?site=sa:adpages page:P29_SUN date:081615

would that be a good deal or better to wait and go with ddr4 and the i7 6700k?

 

[defaultluser]

I know this is an outlier, but some games do use the extra cores. I'm with KickAssCop on this one. I went 5820k a day before Skylake release because I couldn't fathom buying another quad-core in 2015. Managed to get mine OCed to 4.5 ghz on 1.275 Volts and DDR4-3200.

And I will say.. I wasn't expecting quality of life increase in normal desktop usage, but everything is smoother, more consistent, and feels like it has breathe for days. Feels like I could just open shit until the end of time, and it never slows down for a second. Was coming off a 2600k at 4.5ghz w/ DDR3-1600 .

Both have positives and negatives. Skylake you get an easier platform, better IMC, and probably a bit higher OCs. X99 you get the extra cores, quad memory, and extra PCI-e lanes if you ever need them. Overall X99 to me feels more future proof than Skylake and the better investment.

Yes, but this still supports my claim: unless you are a demanding gamer who insists on > 80fps in every game, you will be satisfied with a Core i5 for 5+ years. Just look how close that 2500k is to the magic 60fps mark (and never dips below 37). And it's not even overclocked!

Plus, you get "playable" frame rates that are faster than either of the current consoles on a lowly Haswell Core i3, supporting my claim that a few fast cores are enough to give you the same gaming performance as 4 slower cores (FX-4300). I wouldn't expect the purchase to last you as long though, which is why I always recommend Core i5 for heavy gaming.

 

[Impulse]

Think of it as a multiplexer, it will allow TB, DP, Ethernet signals, etc over USB 3.1c connections. This thing is going to cost quite a bit though. Shouldn't be cheap at least.

Also, M.2 should be faster on an X99 than a Z170. The m.2 has more PCIe lanes that go directly to the CPU than Z170 and will most likely have to go through a PLX chip, causing some over head.

Hmm, so USB 3.1/Type C alternate modes will only work with some controllers and not others? Or are you referring only to specific alt modes that employ Thunderbolt? Because USB itself is on the way to doing all the things TB promised but never delivered...

AFAIK Z170 M.2 lanes (at least for boards with a single slot, those with 2-3 might be different) go directly thru the PCH and the new/faster DMI w/o any PLX in between. Are you saying that'll be significantly slower?

 

[TDSlam720]

Yes, but this still supports my claim: unless you are a demanding gamer who insists on > 80fps in every game, you will be satisfied with a Core i5 for 5+ years. Just look how close that 2500k is to the magic 60fps mark (and never dips below 37). And it's not even overclocked!

Plus, you get "playable" frame rates that are faster than either of the current consoles on a lowly Haswell Core i3, supporting my claim that a few fast cores are enough to give you the same gaming performance as 4 slower cores (FX-4300). I wouldn't expect the purchase to last you as long though, which is why I always recommend Core i5 for heavy gaming.

Eh...in 1440p and 4k you won't be getting those 80 FPS. The 5, 10, 15%+ gains are greatly needed. Keep in mind OPs title states SIM gaming too. Higher chance of SIMs being CPU heavy. Cryengine seems to enjoy more cores, and Star Citizen is heavily based in Cryengine

 

[defaultluser]

Eh...in 1440p and 4k you won't be getting those 80 FPS. The 5, 10, 15%+ gains are greatly needed. Keep in mind OPs title states SIM gaming too. Higher chance of SIMs being CPU heavy. Cryengine seems to enjoy more cores, and Star Citizen is heavily based in Cryengine

1. I wasn't recommending the Core i5 for the OP, I was recommending it for VALUE gamers. If my post wasn't clear, apologies.

2. Thanks for showing the same fucking Crysis 3 benchmark that we've all seen 1000000000000000 times. OMFG, U MEAN CRYSIS 3 EATS MY CPU FOUR BREAKFAST!?!?!?! KNOW WAYZ!!!!111111

Every time some idiot posts a "Welcome to the Jungle" benchmark, I counter with this:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?285161-More-Crysis-3-CPU-benchmarks

YES, Welcome to the jungle loves threads! THE MORE THE MERRIER!

The Root of all evil, and post-human benchmarks all are limited to four cores. This means that Crysis 3 performance scaling CHANGES from one level to another, making it the world's worst-optimized game! And my claim still stands true because the Core i5 is the only CPU under $250 in that test that gets 40fps+ IN EVERY LEVEL!

I don't play SIMs, so I don't have enough experience to make a recommendation.

But I also know that Crysis 3 and Ryse are NOT SIMS, so you should take your "save us from the multi-threaded monster hordes by buying a 5820k" crap elsewhere. Unless you have a clear benchmark of a SIM using more than four threads in your pocket, I suggest you get out of this thread.

 

[Trimlock]

Hmm, so USB 3.1/Type C alternate modes will only work with some controllers and not others? Or are you referring only to specific alt modes that employ Thunderbolt? Because USB itself is on the way to doing all the things TB promised but never delivered...

AFAIK Z170 M.2 lanes (at least for boards with a single slot, those with 2-3 might be different) go directly thru the PCH and the new/faster DMI w/o any PLX in between. Are you saying that'll be significantly slower?

Correct on the first part. Second part you are explaining what will make the Z170 platform very confusing, they have many options, different chips to use and different configurations. Also I never used the word significant when defining the use of the PLX chip, it should be slower but no one knows yet how slow.

It is situational. I agree some people are going to be better off with x99, I am just not one of those people

Many Z170 boards will not have a PLX chip because there are enough PCIe lanes for single GPU which is all I use. I don't like M.2, I rather have a PCIe card with a heat spreader plugged into an x4 slot.

That said I think both are good options and will serve most of us equally.

I agree, I think both platforms are very good.

 

[TDSlam720]

1. I wasn't recommending the Core i5 for the OP, I was recommending it for VALUE gamers. If my post wasn't clear, apologies.

2. Thanks for showing the same fucking Crysis 3 benchmark that we've all seen 1000000000000000 times. OMFG, U MEAN CRYSIS 3 EATS MY CPU FOUR BREAKFAST!?!?!?! KNOW WAYZ!!!!111111

I don't play SIMs, so I don't have enough experience to make a recommendation.

But I also know that Crysis 3 and Ryse are NOT SIMS, so you should take your "save us from the multi-threaded monster hordes by buying a 5820k" crap elsewhere. Unless you have a clear benchmark of a SIM using more than four threads in your pocket, I suggest you get out of this thread.

Why are you telling me to get out of the thread when you're not even discussing the core issue of X99 vs Skylake for gaming. Clock for clock the worst you're going to do with X99 is equal Skylake, but in certain scenarios X99 will our perform Skylake.